Mr Patrick Holford vs. The Times & The Herald

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Patrick Holford and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times, on behalf of The Times and The Herald newspapers.

Complaint

Holford is complaining about a story in The Times and The Herald, as well as on the website TimesLive on 7 October 2014, headlined Vitamin ‘quack’ to train docs.

He says that the story falsely states that he:

·         claimed that vitamin C works better than the antiretroviral drug AZT for treating HIV, that vitamin C can sometimes be better than vaccines for preventing viral illnesses; and

·         had no legitimate qualifications in any area of nutrition.

Holford also describes the reference to him as being a “quack” as inaccurate, and adds that the story has severely harmed his reputation and integrity.

The text

The story, written by Katharine Child, says that “…Holford – the man who claimed vitamin C works better than the antiretroviral drug AZT for treating HIV – has been accredited to award South African doctors professional development points”.

Analysis

Vitamin C, HIV

The story says that Holford claimed vitamin C works better than the antiretroviral drug AZT for treating HIV. It also states: “Holford claims on his blog that vitamin C can sometimes be better than vaccines in preventing viral illnesses.”

Holford denies that he ever said anything to this effect.

Smuts points me to the website www.patrickholford.com/advice/the-vaccine-nation-inside-story-on-vaccinations , where he (indeed) argues that vitamin C is preferable to vaccines. For example: “Vitamin C, both in cells and in real-life if you get the dose high enough, does the job better. Why bother with a vaccine?” Also: “Compared to the trials on vaccines or drugs, and the dubious safety and known side-effects, a vitamin C and nutrient strategy wins hands down.”

On another website (www.patrickholford.com/advice/the-truth-about-hiv-and-vitamin-C) he (for example) writes: “I say that ‘AZT, the first prescribable anti-HIV drug, is potentially harmful and proving less effective than vitamin C in suppressing the virus in chronically infected cells’.”

My considerations

Having read these articles, I find it difficult – if not impossible – to understand how Holford can deny in his complaint to this office what he has indeed stated in no uncertain terms in some of his articles.

No legitimate qualification

The story quotes the dean of medicine and health sciences at Stellenbosch University, Jimmy Volmink, as saying: “Patrick Holford has no legitimate qualification in any area of nutrition.”

Holford complains that this is not true, as he (inter alia):

·         is an honorary fellow of the British Association of Nutritional Therapy and a member of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (“which are the qualifications required to practice as a nutritional therapist in the UK”);

·         is a Patron of the SA Association of Nutritional Therapy;

·         was inducted to the International Society of Orthomolecular Medicine’s Hall of Fame; and

·         is a retired visiting professor at the University of Teesside (“a position that required the testimonial of four professors”).

He concludes: “I frequently present [papers] at medical conferences in the UK and abroad and have not encountered any issues regarding CPD credentials.”

Smuts argues that the link to Holford’s websites reveals no formal qualifications, but just a list of papers he has published. “In our submission he has no qualifications.”

My considerations

It was not necessary for Smuts to argue this point. The story did not state as fact that Holford had no legitimate qualifications – Child quoted Volmink as saying it.

The issue is quite simple: Volmink surely is a credible source, and he had a right to his opinion whether he was right or wrong – as much as the newspapers had a right to publish his view on this matter.

Please note that this is not a decision on the issue of whether or not Holford has legitimate qualifications – if the story stated Volmink’s opinion as fact, I would have had to probe deeper into this specific matter.

‘Quack’

The article does not call Holford a quack. However, the headline does (in inverted commas).

Holford says this word means that he is a charlatan, or that he is an unqualified, untrained person who pretends to be a physician and dispenses medical advice and treatment, and dishonestly claims to have medical knowledge. He complains that the use of this word is inaccurate.

Smuts reiterates that Holford did indeed make the claims that he now disavows. “This together with his lack of qualifications in the field in which he trades allows us to use the comment ‘quack’ as protected or fair comment.”

My considerations

Volmink’s full statement, as reported in the story, can justifiably be interpreted as that he views Holford as a quack (rightly or wrongly), even though this word was not mentioned specifically. The newspapers were therefore within their rights to use this word, as long as they did not state it as fact – which they did not, as the inverted commas indicated that this opinion came from a source.

Again, this is not a judgment that Holford is in fact a quack – that is not for me to decide. I am merely saying that the use of the word in inverted commas was justified.

Severely harming his reputation, integrity

Holford complains that the stories have discredited his reputation and resulted in the decision of the SA Medical Association to reverse its decision to provide credits for doctors attending his courses, thereby reducing his exposure to health professionals and therefore damaging his livelihood. “I have since learnt that the granted accreditation for these courses has been withdrawn as a direct consequence of this inaccurate and defamatory article.”

            My considerations

I have little doubt that the article did cause Holford some harm (although it is hard to believe that the Medical Association withdrew his accreditation on the basis of a newspaper article only). However, the question is not whether the story has caused him harm, but rather whether it was unnecessary harm. (The Preamble to the Press Code clearly states that the press should avoid unnecessary harm – depending on circumstances, when it is in the public interest, it may even be the press’s duty to cause harm.)

Having decided that the newspapers were justified in their reporting, it follows that I cannot conclude that the stories caused Holford unnecessary harm.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Adjudication Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombudsman